This blog covers and writes about poverty a lot as it should. But writing about something a lot can make it difficult to put things in a new an interesting way and makes it difficult to sound repetitive and boring. So this post will be different in the sense and look at poverty simply and purely as a public investment pure and simple. “We as taxpayers give people who aren’t able to make it on their own in life this amount money and this is what we expect in return from the money that we give you”. Instead of looking at public assistance almost entirely from a public charity perspective.

The question for me at least as a New Democrat and Liberal is not whether or not we should have public assistance in America. But what is it for and what we should get in return. Yes what we should get in return that public assistance is a hand up and not a handout. Again “we give you money to help you sustain yourself in the short-term and this is what we expect you to do while you are getting our money”. That is where the hand up and public investment function kicks in. The money people on public assistance yes receive money to survive in the short-term, but they are also getting help improving themselves as people.

Preparing themselves to not only reënter or enter the workforce, but reënter or enter the workforce with the skills needed to get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work from 1996 was about at least from the Clinton Administration and other New Democrats. “You get help to pay your immediate bills and cost of living with a wide variety of assistance. But what you do in return is finish your education and making sure your kids are not only in school, but getting a good education as well. So you get the skills you need to get yourself a good job and so do your kids if you have any”.

If we simply look at public assistance from the perspective of public investment and investing in human capital included in that immediate cost of living instead of looking at simply, or mostly as public charity then public assistance would be popular in America. Because hardworking Americans who perhaps struggle just to pay their bills, but who are not poor would support these policies. Because they would not only see them as public investments in their fellow Americans, but the country .

Recent Posts: The New Democrat Plus

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Warning! This piece might contain language that may offend people who are still living in the 1950s and forgot to move with the times in America as the rest of country moved forward without them. Just to say one thing about George Carlin: Goddammit George […]

Source: Victor D. Hanson: Rethinking Watergate I look at Watergate now more than 45 years after the 1972 break in and almost 45 years after Congress starts to look into the the Watergate break in and the 1972 presidential election with the Senate Watergate Select Committee, in a couple of ways. First, just the pure stupidity […]

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat It you were born let’s say yesterday or at the very least have a personality and even intelligence level that makes you seem so young, naive, inexperienced, and innocent that you come off as someone who was born yesterday and perhaps don’t even remember the […]

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat The first part of this interview Dave Rubin and David Frum are talking about Canada and Canadian politics and what I’m interested here since David Frum is Conservative ( as he puts it ) is that what it means to be a Canadian Conservative is […]

.Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat When I think of this Onion article, I go back to I believe the first Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump presidential debate in 2016 where someone asked Trump did he believe Russia was responsible for hacking into the election campaigns and hacking into the DNC emails and […]